9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the expenditure. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the finding of ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09) 117 ITD 001 has held that when the expenditure treated as deferred revenue expenditure results in the creating of any capital asset, tangible or intangible., a case can be made out to treat the same as capital expenditure. iii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere disallowance of depreciation does not mean that no capital asset has been brought into existence. iv). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the annual report for the F.Y.2001-02 under the head significant accounting policies, it is stated that the cost incurred on product development and technical knowhow is accumulated and treated as deferred revenue expenditure. When the cost is accumulated as technical knowhow it is intangible capital in nature." 5. Befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. and further relied on the Special Bench decision in case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 001. She, thus, supported the order of A.O. Ld. A.R., on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that while deciding the issue in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the various decisions cited in his order and after also considering the decision of Special Bench in case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.(supra) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He pointed out to the relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2002-03. He, therefore, submitted that since there are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case are different. ii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Spl. Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 001 has held that when the expenditure treated as deferred revenue expenditure results in the creating of any capital asset, tangible or intangible., a case can be made out to treat the same as capital expenditure. iii). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere disallowance of depreciation does not mean that no capital asset has been brought into existence. iv). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the annual report for the F.Y.2001-02 under the head significant accounting policies, it is stated that the cost incurred on product development and technical kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
